Reciprocal System #398-"The Historical Perspective" [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

hello everyone and welcome to my channel this is a channel for the purposes of Education uh turning people on to uh different and important theories of everything cosmologies all-encompassing theories Paradigm shifters and uh esoteric and obscure um lines of thinking from ancient and modern and um today is our 398th video on the reciprocal system of theory from dwey B Larson and U Mr Larson was an American engineer in the 20th century he died back in 1990 in 1959 he put out his two fundamental postulates about uh radical uh revision or reversion of how the universe operates and then took those two postulates and uh put them through a process of deduction a process of if this then that and arrived at his theoretical Universe this is Larson's Universe How the Universe would look if his postulates were correct and then he compared his Universe with the universe that the physicists and astronomers and chemists had measured in their Laboratories and published in tables and such like in um you know databases and in textbooks and so on uh lo and behold Larsson was able to uh recreate 90% of their Universe right from Theory just right from his head uh no uh billion doll grants for super collider machines or um refracting telescopes you know no um you know Army of physicists or chemists um you know to put um on the job he's able to do it by himself on a shoestring budget so uh you know you can think about that next time you're wanting to give out a million dollars to one of these uh guys in lab coats and maybe think about uh you know floating a flyer over to somebody else who's kind of outside the uh you know outside of the uh historical Paradigm the scientific Paradigm and uh they'll probably get a lot better bang for your buck uh now the basics of Larson's system is that uh we live in a universe made out of motion not made out of matter not made out of energy not composed of the fundamental forces uh in fact matter energy and force are all just forms of motion the universe is made out of motion and in particular it's made out of a form of motion that is largely misunderstood which is called the scalar motion that is a motion that has a magnitude but it has no specific Direction you can model using a balloon with dots on it if you blow up the balloon all the dots are moving away from each other but they're not moving in any specific Direction every dot is moving away from every other dot if you suck in the balloon all of the dots are moving toward each other and again they're not moving in any specific Direction not at least until you assign a reference Point once you arbitrarily decide that one of the dots is going to be motionless then you can start uh figuring out the uh directions the directions are a product of the reference point the reference system not the motion itself the motion itself is directionless or scalar and uh the thing about the universe of motion is that motion is the relationship between space and time and um so that's uh you know a very very short version of how it goes uh the basic the postulates themselves the first postulate is that the universe is composed of one component motion existing in three dimensions in discrete units and with two reciprocal aspects space and time and the second postulate is that the Universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is ukian now there there have been uh numerous versions of the postulates that he he revised uh slightly over the years so you know it's hard to exactly quote uh what he's saying but those that is uh I think that's probably a quote of one of the versions that he's given uh but um the second postulate is obviously not as important as the first and the second postulate has been um criticized by some of larsson's followers um who reject the concept of uh not reject the concept of ukian geometry but just recognize that the ukian geometry part is a little bit limited it's not giving the whole picture and so they've replaced ukian geometry with projective geometry which is a more inclusive form of geometry that that includes ukian geometry um but with the first postulate you know the basic prongs the universe is made out of motion motion is the relationship between space and time which sets up a generalized reciprocal relationship between space and time space and time have a both have the same qualities uh because they're reciprocals of one another uh one thing we know about space is that it's three-dimensional um XYZ coordinates or volume therefore time also has a three-dimensional aspect um also uh time and space come only in discrete units they are quantized uh there's a Quantum of space a Quantum of time really there's a Quantum of motion all of our basic scientific quantities are forms of motion including matter energy and force but the most basic one that we know of is speed speed is space divided by time the car is moving 15 miles hour uh you can see the reciprocal relationship if you just try to double the speed you can now say the car is moving 30 mil hour or you can say the car is moving 15 miles per half hour either way expresses an equivalent um statement and uh you can either multiply the space or you can divide the time that is a reciprocal relationship between space and time in speed but this uh reciprocal relationship adheres in all cases of motion and so every kind of motion is a relationship between space and time speed space over time energy time over space acceleration space over time to the second power force time over space to the second power matter time to the third power over space to the third power pressure time over space to the fourth power and so on and so forth and so that provides a wonderful check on uh you know equations of old to make sure that the uh units are um consistent and also it simplifies all of your measurements because no longer are you dealing with an MKS system of three different units you know met kilogram seconds you know time and space but then also mass now you're just dealing with time in space makes it a whole lot easier uh and uh that's just one of the many ways in which the reciprocal system uh improves and uh simplifies things massively just using the reciprocal system clears up so many different problems of LA standing in science as Mr Larson will uh attest to and will uh talk about here we're going to read his paper today that is called the historical perspective so Larsson is going to you know talk about the development of his theory and what it means in terms of you know what has gone before in terms of the you know History of Science okay the historical perspective the foundation of my theoretical system is a rigorous definition of space and time which specifies that these entities are the two reciprocal aspects of motion and have no other significance this is the only basic Innovation that I have introduced into physical science uh and that's I didn't mention that but space and time uh exist only together in motion they do not exist separately they only exist together in motion and like he says they have no other significance now you can abstract space and time um and separate them out but by doing so you're basically it's the same as like determining the distance uh the direction by uh assigning a reference point once you assign a reference point you've basically stopped the universe you've taken a photo or you you know and and you are are no longer uh in the now you have stopped and um created an artifact and so you can measure that and you might it might be useful but it is not reality because reality stays in the now and that's where this universe of motion uh and so Larson is really saying that in order to really do science you have to keep the universe moving because that's that's reality this other stuff is abstraction okay um indeed the entire subsequent development could be accurately characterized as nothing more than an investigation of the consequences of this new SpaceTime definition thus The Logical status of the new theoretical system as a whole is determined by the status of the reciprocal relationship this redef redefinition of space and time is a very radical deviation from current scientific thought and the system of theory that I have derived from it has therefore been handicapped from the start by the usual human reluctance to give countenance to or to become identified with uh heretical doctrines of any kind I am therefore pleased to be able to report that as a result of further investigation of physical F fundamentals I am now able to show that the new space-time definition is not heretical at all on the contrary it is a natural and logical extension of a line of thought that has been actively pursued by a host of scientists and philosophers including some of the most eminent EXC excuse me some of the most eminent men in these professions over a period of at least 3 or 400 years in fact can be said that the space-time definition that I am proposing is implicitly contained in the premises upon which all of this previous work was based the justification for all of the immense amount of effort that has been applied to this particular line of Investigation lies of course in the fact that physical Theory as now constituted is not and never has been able to keep Pace with scientific progress it is true that physical science has made a spectacular record of accomplishment on the basis of the present structure of theory a record that has no parallel in other areas of human thought but the continuing advance of knowledge places new and more stringent demands on the theoretical structure and the these demands are not being met it should not be necessary to enter into any extended discussion of this point in as much as the inadequacy of existing theory is a is generally conceded even by those who have been most active in its development as Richard feinan puts it quote we are in some kind of trouble end quote the math I'm sorry the main cause of this trouble is not hard to find before we can construct an accurate theory of anything we must have at least a reasonably good idea as to the nature of the thing about which we are theorizing this physical science does not have the ex accepted idea is that we live in a universe of matter a universe in which the basic entities are units or particles of matter existing in a setting or framework provided by space and time and this idea is clearly wrong although the fact is not yet generally recognized primarily because no one wants to face the issue the matter concept of the universe has been completely demolished by modern by the modern discovery that matter can be transformed into non-matter and vice versa equals mc² obviously this is conclusive proof that matter is not basic there must be some common denominator underlying both matter and non-matter however we science scientists may be to part with it the concept of a universe of matter is no longer tenable and sooner or later it will have to be abandoned along with those uh portions of existing theory that are wholly dependent on this concept since we are in trouble and we know why the next question that arises is what are we going to do about it what can be put in the place of this erroneous concept of a universe of matter oddly enough the most likely answer to this question has been known for centuries it has long been recognized that some very substantial advantages would acre from replacing the matter concept with the concept of a universe of motion one in which the basic entities are units of motion rather than units of matter as so many previous investigators have realized a physical Theory based on the motion concept would be comprehensive that is it could Embrace such items as radiation and electrical phenomena which are an act uh act which are an acute embarrassment for present day matter theory in as much as they are neither matter nor part of the background in which matter is presumed to exist furthermore a theory based on the motion concept could account for the behavior of physical entities as well as for their existence when we formulate a theory or set of theories to explain the existence of such entities on the matter basis we must construct another set of theories to explain how they behave but a theory based on the most concept can explain not only what these entities are but also what they do then two the motion concept brings us closer to an ultimate understanding of the universe if we postulate a universe of matter we are immediately confronted with the question what is matter a question that has never been fully or satisfactorily explained but we think we have an intuitive understanding of what motion is so we are in trouble we know why and we know the most promising way out of our difficulties why then is no structure of theory based on the motion concept available the answer is that hundreds of years of painstaking effort by competent scientists and philosophers such men as Edington Hobs and dayart as well as a multitude of less prominent individuals have been unsuccessful and no workable theory of a universe of motion has here toor been constructed these previous investigators have started with the premise that we live in a universe of motion all things have but one universal cause which is motion says Hobs unequivocally and have attempted to build upon this Foundation but they have invariably encountered an obstacle which they have been unable to surmount or even to identify as their most strenuous efforts have been fruitless for a great many years I've have been poking around in the dark corners of Science and in the course of this activity I have discovered the nature of the obstacle that has blocked the way of those who have sought to develop a physical theory on the motion basis the situation can be represented graphically um by this diagram which I do not have access to Edington and others have started with the concept of a universe of motion m and have followed a line of thought based on this concept but have encountered some unidentified obstacle X and they have been unable to take the next logical step to The crucial conclusion R which would have enabled them to construct a theory on the motion basis however in the course of my investigations I have arrived at this crucial conclusion R from a different direction starting from empirical premises e and following a purely mathematical route having reached the conclusion R I was then able to look back and determine the nature of the obstacle X that block the way of those who attempted to reason directly from the postulate of a universe of motion in this way I have found that the formidable obstacle which frustrated the best efforts of all of the earlier investigators was their failure to realize that switching from the concept of a universe of matter to the concept of a universe of motion requires a redefinition of space and time in a universe of matter the basic definition the definition of matter does not define space and time and these entities must therefore be defined independently all of the previous investigators have assumed that independent definition is also required in a universe of motion but this is not correct in a universe of motion the basic definition the definition of motion also defines space and time and in such a universe no independent definitions are possible motion is defined as a relation between space and time and is measured as speed or velocity the mathematical expression of that relation the equation of motion in its simpler simplest form is V equal s / T velocity equal space over time as can be seen from this equation the standard definition of motion in terms of space and time is also a definition of space and time in terms of motion that is motion that is in motion space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of that motion and nothing else in a universe of matter the fact that space and time have only this limited significance with respect to motion does not preclude them from possessing in other aspects in connection with phenomena of a different character as present day Theory assumes but in a universe of motion where all physical entities and phenomena are manifestations of motion the role of space and time in motion is their role in the universe as a whole they cannot have any Properties or any significance that they do not have in motion space and time can be three-dimensional as my theory requires if motion itself is three-dimensional they can exist in discrete units only as the theory also requires if motion exists only in discrete units but they cannot constitute a setting or background for motion because motion is not a background for itself everywhere in the physical universe space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of motion and they have no other significance anywhere this is the crucial conclusion represented by the symbol r on the diagram thus as I said earlier the new definition of space and time is implicit in the concept of a universe of motion if Edington and other earlier investigators who attempted to build a physical Theory on the concept of the universe of motion had seen the situation more clearly they would have recognized that once they postulate that motion is the basic constituent of the universe they are automatically committed whether they like it or not to this new definition of space and time in as much as the entire system of theory that I have outlined in my published work is merely a detailed development of the consequences of redefining space and time in uh this manner it follows that this theoretical system is necessary and unavoidable is a necessary and unavoidable result to the extent that the development has been correctly and accurately carried and uh has been uh correctly and accurately carried out of the concept of a universe of motion it is the result that the previous investigators inevitably would have reached if their Outlook had not been so severely limited by the mathematical by the traditional view of the nature of space and time from which they were unable to break away all right that is the the end of that article the historical perspective from Dy B Larson and um yeah so uh you know he's kind of saying that uh it's it's only logical uh the universe is not made out of matter because equals mc² energy equals matter time the speed of light squared that means that energy can be converted to matter and vice versa that means that neither energy nor matter can be the most fundamental thing there has to be something that underlies both of them and that is perhaps the c squared part the motion the speed of light squared and um he doesn't really say that but um he does say that innumerable people in the past have attempted to build their Universe based on uh a composition of motion but they have not succeeded because none of them redefined space and time in the context of motion and when Larson does that uh voila all the answers pop right out and um you know they still have to be deduced and you know arrived at and that's a painstaking process um and Larson never completed that work Nei nor did he ever think that he would he started it though and he went a long way and uh it's left for us here in the 21st century and maybe other people in the 22nd century or maybe will live that long to get to the 22nd century and uh um it's up to us to uh carve out this uh this system to to um work out the Kinks and to apply it in every field I certainly Envision that uh the reciprocal system will be the basis of all education um moving forward not just in the Sciences but in all fields including all of the metaphysical woowoo fields we will finally have a an objective basis on which to operate in every field and that is the future that is awaiting us if we don't blow ourselves up first or you know um inject ourselves uh into Oblivion or whatever it is that we're attempting to do right now um as a result of um you know buying into uh a lot of human foibles that uh are being set up as traps for us to just fall right into um you know we need to recognize that there are some people out there that don't have our best interest in mind and they are going to manipulate us um into making a kinds of mistakes if we stay the course and we um you know put our nose to the grindstone and stop playing around with emotions about what I want to be true and examine what actually is true then we'll start making progress if we keep footing around with um you know uh clinging to traditions and clinging to there's there's use useful things about tradition but not uh if if they're wrong um if they've if they've been exposed as being wrong they are in need of some type of adaptation not expecting anybody to drop everything at once you have to have an alternative before you can just drop something but um you know this is the alternative uh it it's not uh wree it's got It's got some problems with it it needs to be patched up uh Larson wasn't perfect he made certain mistakes those things can be fixed though um we just need some people to apply themselves to this first we need some people who recognize that it exists so that's what I'm trying to do I'm no by by no means any type of expert on this but since nobody else on the Internet is doing it um that I know of you know got to put it out there all right uh please tune in tomorrow for another um educational installment of on the reciprocal system of theory and thanks for tuning in today have a great